Francis Andrews Xavier vs Axis Bank

S. Ravi Kumar, Chairperson

This Appeal is preferred against Order dated 08.08.2023 passed by Registrar in AIR (SA) 694/2023, declining to register the Appeal in terms of Rule 6 (4) of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter called the DRAT Procedure Rules, 1994).

Advocate for Appellant submitted that Appeal is filed by the General Power Attorney (GPA) holder and as there was delay in collecting GPA from Dubai, where the party is residing, the objection in respect of that aspect, could not be removed. He submitted, now as GPA is received, the decline Order of Registrar may be set aside and an opportunity may be given to Appellant. He further submitted the lapses on the part of Advocate, cannot result in injustice to parties, considering these aspects, the Appeal has to be allowed and decline Order dated 08.08.2023 has to be set aside.

When it is put to Advocate for Appellant what is wrong in the Order of Registrar, he fairly stated that there is no wrong in the Order of Registrar, but due to mistake of his junior, the facts could not be represented before Registrar about obtaining GPA from the party, who is residing in Dubai. However, he submitted, as per Rules, Registrar has to give 15 days, but he has granted short time.

I have perused material papers. As seen from record, the objections are raised on 31.05.2023 and Appellant was given time for compliance, till 08.06.2023, and thereafter, extended till 21.06.2023, 05.07.2023, 14.07.2023, 21.07.2023, 03.08.2023, and finally to 08.08.2023. It appears that on some days, Appellant was represented and on some days, Appellant was not represented. In spite of that, Registrar accommodated and granted time liberally for removing Office Objection. When the matter came up on 03.08.2023, Counsel for Appellant was present and sought time for removing objection, as last chance, and Registrar granted time till 08.08.2023, as last chance, but, on 08.08.2023, neither Counsel for Appellant was present nor Objection is removed, and Registrar, having no other option, declined the Appeal in terms of Rule 6 (4) of DRAT Procedure Rules, 1994. Nowhere, it is represented before Registrar that GPA is to be collected from Dubai and it will take considerable time that is now for first time it is represented here. Submission of Advocate for Appellant that Registrar has to give 15 days is not correct. As per Regulation No. 9 of DRAT Regulations, 2015, Appellant shall be asked to remove defects within 15 days and the same may be extended for a total period not exceeding one month. Therefore, Registrar ought to have declined the Appeal at the first instance itself after expiry of 15 days, but, only to accommodate Appellant, he granted short times beyond one month, though total period cannot exceed one month, but Advocate for Appellant contends that every time 15 days gap is to be there, which is not supported by any provision. As Registrar has given ample opportunity for Appellant to remove Office Objection, which is not properly utilized, I am of the view that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the decline Order dated 08.08.2023 and the Chamber Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Chamber Appeal No. 18/2023 is dismissed.